On 8/5/06, Geert Hendrickx <ghen@netbsd.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 01:07:30PM +0000, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> > When using a development version of the system (be it current, a beta or
> > a release candidate), tell the user that he might expect problems and how
> > to effectively report them to the developers.
>
> > cvs rdiff -r1.333 -r1.334 src/etc/Makefile
> --- src/etc/Makefile:1.333      Sun Jul 23 11:44:55 2006
> +++ src/etc/Makefile    Sat Aug  5 13:07:30 2006
> @@ -112,7 +112,18 @@
>  .endif
>
>  # -rw-rw-r--
> +.if !empty(DISTRIBVER:M*.99.*)
> +BIN2+= motd.current
> +FILESNAME_motd.current=        motd
> +.elif !empty(DISTRIBVER:M*BETA*)
> +BIN2+= motd.beta
> +FILESNAME_motd.beta=   motd
> +.elif !empty(DISTRIBVER:M*RC*)
> +BIN2+= motd.rc
> +FILESNAME_motd.rc=     motd
> +.else
>  BIN2+= motd
> +.endif
>
>  # -rw-------
>  BIN3+= hosts.equiv
>
> Aren't the versions on a branch called *_STABLE instead of _BETA?  At least
> here (on netbsd-3) I have:
>
> % uname -r
> 3.0_STABLE

When a new branch is cut, it is named _BETA until the .0 release is
made.  E.g., when 4.0 is branched, the branch will exist and will
carry the 4.0_BETA name.  Later on, it will evolve to 4.0_RCn, and
then to 4.0 (or is it 4.0_RELEASE?).  Once 4.0 is released, the next
change applied to it will switch the name to 4.0_STABLE.

As time passes, 4.0_STABLE might become 4.1_RCn, and soon after
4.1_RELEASE.  Then, it'd be 4.1_STABLE.

I'm not sure we want to consider _STABLE versions as development
ones...  It'd look strange ;-)

Cheers,

-- 
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com>
The Julipedia - http://julipedia.blogspot.com/